Home but nobody's
Hong Kong's energy audit scheme isn't doing enough to encourage building owners and companies to boost their green credentials, writes Elaine Yau
By swapping fluorescent lights in staircases and common areas for a more energy efficient model, annual carbon emission from City One in Sha Tin would be cut by 850 tonnes. The measure - proposed by a consultancy that conducted a carbon audit of the estate in 2010 - would cost HK$400,000. Would you have agreed if you were a resident?
Although half the cost would be subsidised by the government many tenants objected to the expense, says Sam Chan Yau-wing, communications manager of Paramatta Estate Management, which runs City One. After many reminders that costs would be recouped in 3½ years through reduced power bills (the lights use 40 per cent less electricity), tenants agreed.
As a member of the C40 Large Cities Climate Change Leadership Group, Hong Kong might be expected to set an example in reducing its carbon footprint. But progress has been in fits and starts.
In 2009, the government set aside HK$450 million for a scheme to improve building efficiency, HK$150 million of which would support carbon audits and the rest energy-saving projects for three years. It followed with the Buildings Energy Efficiency Ordinance, which came into effect last year, requiring all commercial buildings to conduct an energy audit every 10 years.
The initial focus on energy audits makes sense. After all, 60 per cent of carbon emissions are due to electricity generation and Hong Kong's 40,000 plus buildings account for 90 per cent of total power consumption.
But while the audit subsidy scheme and new law has brought more work for environmental consultancies, they say too few building owners or companies follow through with measures to improve energy efficiency.